|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 10:26 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
Ok here we go with the blood libel shit. It's idiotic to talk about all the fun things going on with every religion as proof of how great life for the Jews had been. The Romans had forbidden Jews to study Torah before and after Jesus. Jews displayed a cultural nationalism under Gracco-Roman rule that posed a threat because while studying Torah, and the Midrash, Jews were respecting those laws above any government body. By nature of Jews being Jews the Romans found reason to oppress them. I don't think Jews practicing their religion should be classified as a "political revolt"do you? The reason for the Judah Maccabee revolt was because of persecution. King Antiochus IV wasn't allowing Jews to worship. Jews celebrate Channuka and learn the driedel story to pay tribute. That was as far back as 167 BCE. The Romans conquered Judah in 63 BCE and then in 35 CE Jesus was killed. Masada was in 70 CE and Jerusalem was finally seized by Jews in 132 CE, only to have the Romans destroy the second Temple and take back control in 135 CE, outlawing, enslaving and flat our murdering Jews in Jerusalem. Jesus was raised within a Jewish community that was split between those who studied Torah known as the Essenes, who were labled fanatical Zealots and the Sadducees who collaborated with the Romans, encouraged assimilation, and rejected the addition of the Midrash as a footnote to the Torah. (this is an admitedly simplistic explanation) By the time of Jesus death, and reign of Caligula, two years later, in 37 CE, antisemetism had become deeply ingrained in the social and political fabric of the Romans world. |
||
| Jan 24th, 2004 09:20 PM | |||
| Guderian |
Jesus represented a foil to more radical Jewish leaders though. The more followers Jesus has, the less followers the kinds of Jewish leaders who might start a political revolution have. Abcdxxxx... The Roman Empire was an amalgam of different religions; there was never any attempt to force "Roman religion" (by that I mean worship of the Jupiter-led pantheon, not paying lip service to the idea of Imperial divinity, which wasn't a concept in Jesus' time anyway) on the occupied peoples. The Greeks continued to worship their gods, the temples to Isis in Egypt were open until the Byzantines closed them in the 500's, and all the other more minor religions of the conquered peoples in Gaul, Britain, and North Africa were allowed to continue after the Roman conquest. This is one of the features of Roman rule that made it so successful - so long as the occupied peoples didn't stir up trouble, they were basically left alone to trade, make money, practice their respective religions, etc. Judaea was a notable exception to the rule because most of the Jewish religious leaders were openly opposed to Roman occupation. This of course culminated in the major revolt you mentioned, the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 that ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. With most estimates for Jesus' life placing him at least 30 years before this event, you can see that the Romans were hardly oppressing Jewish religion to any real extent. The Temple was destroyed as a consequence of Jewish political revolt, not Jewish religion conflicting with Roman beliefs. Later on, Christians would refuse to accept the Emperor as being divine, which would result in their persecution; this, however, was far in the future at this point. You mention that studying the Torah was illegal. If that's the case, you would expect that the Pharisees would have been an underground resistance at the time of Jesus. |
||
| Jan 24th, 2004 06:17 PM | |||
| Ant10708 | The Romans feared large crowds of people. And Jesus did just that, he created large crowds of people. They didn't give a shit about his actual religious teachings. So they let the Jews do whatever they wanted to him because they didn't care. | ||
| Jan 24th, 2004 05:58 PM | |||
| The Unseen | Religion is DUMB. | ||
| Jan 24th, 2004 05:53 PM | |||
| Big Papa Goat | Explain the fact that they had temples in Gaul devoted to Gailic and Roman gods. Religion wasn't their major concern, its just that the israelis resisted the occupation more than most other people. | ||
| Jan 24th, 2004 06:12 AM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
[quote="Big Papa Goat"] Quote:
|
||
| Jan 24th, 2004 01:52 AM | |||
| Guderian |
Many other Jewish leaders were preaching violent resistance to the Romans (later to culminate in the Revolt of 66-70 CE and the Bar Kochba Revolt at a later date); those were the ones the Romans "wanted out of their hair". Why would they want to get rid of someone who encouraged the Jews to pay their taxes and be peaceful and obedient? Sure, he's promising a "Kingdom of Heaven", but so far as the Romans were concerned that was all false anyway. Besides, they control the banks. The Romans, that is. |
||
| Jan 24th, 2004 01:44 AM | |||
| Big Papa Goat |
Quote:
And I believe Pilate wrote "Here lies Jesus, King of the Jews" (Or something like that, describing Jesus as the King of the Jews) despite some protest from the jewsih priests (rabbi's whatever). Besides, Romans never much cared about religions, and Jesus wasn't causing too much trouble. |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 05:00 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
It helps to bone up on a subject before you go public with theories on it. Rabbis were mainly reffered to as Cohenim, because you had to be from the Cohenim tribe to become one. By High Priest I think you mean the Grand Rabbi? There are actually a lot of modern translations that do call them "High Priests" when describing the dress codes, and rituals they're supposed to adhere to. The way you phrased it was a bit funny though. Rabbis are allowed to get married and it's their duty to have a happy sex life as well as a happy home. Wheee! Jesus was the Rabbinical version of a street preacher during a time when Jews were often being persecuted by way of "crucifixion". |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 04:42 PM | |||
| Brandon |
Why is there a point in blaming the crucifixion on anyone? According to Christian theology, Jesus was intended to die, right? If it was fated to happen, no one is to blame since they were mere tools of destiny. |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 04:31 PM | |||
| Perndog |
Jesus couldn't have been a jew, only Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans are named Jesus! 
|
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 03:47 PM | |||
| Bennett |
Quote:
|
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 03:42 PM | |||
| Ant10708 |
It was the jews fault but jesus was a jew so who cares. the Romans just wanted jesus out of their hair. |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 03:17 PM | |||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 03:09 PM | |||
| Elecman.exe | Hold on morons, you're missing the point. My hypothesis is that the High Priests MAY have been responsible. Not the jews. Christ, you assholes, everytime a topic is made, over half of you want to start an arguement just to piss people off. | ||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 02:58 PM | |||
| ScruU2wice |
I mean if it weren't for the jews jesus could've been around today 
|
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 02:32 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
And why does it matter if the Hebrews were responsible or not? Why is it such a big deal? Quote:
Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. --Matt. xxiii. 8.  Origins of the term: [Middle English rabi, from Old French, from Late Latin rabb, master, from Greek rhabbi, O my master, from Hebrew, and Aramaic rabbî, my master rab, master (from rab, to become great. See rbb in Semitic Roots) + -î, my.] |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 02:03 PM | |||
| Emu | I believe they should actually be called HEBREW priests, if we're going to argue semantics. | ||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:39 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:25 PM | |||
| Bennett |
that was my point. why mention they were "Jewish Priests"? What else would they be? Am I missing some other predominant religion that was around? It just seems like unnecessary information. |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:22 PM | |||
| Elecman.exe | Perhaps I don't understand your post completely, but they were not Christian priests. Christianity had not formed till AFTER Christ was crucified | ||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:13 PM | |||
| Bennett |
what difference does it make that they were "Jewish Priests"? Granted, I'm probably missing something here, but were they supposed to be "Christian Priests"? If Judaism was the predominant religion, (which really I have no idea if it was or not)does it matter that they were Jewish? |
||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:10 PM | |||
| Elecman.exe | The term "Rabbi" was not used for Jewish priests during the time of Jesus Christ.........DUMMY | ||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 01:08 PM | |||
| Anonymous | Rabbis, dummy. Rabbis. | ||
| Jan 23rd, 2004 12:52 PM | |||
| Cosmo Electrolux | you can't kill something that never existed...that would be like trying to insult OAO's intelligence...it's not there so it can't be done. | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
